Anurag, Ghaziabad V. ITO, Ward-1(1), Ghaziabad

ITA 1023/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5090 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Gift; Tangible material; Accommodation entries; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 143(1); 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1023/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 ANURAG, VS. ITO, WARD-1(1), E-26, SHASTRI NAGAR, GHAZIABAD MEERUT UTTAR PADESH PIN: 250002 (PAN: AAWPA7602C) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.P. RASTOGI, ADV. REVENUE BY : SHRI PRADEEP SINGH GAUTAM, SR. DR. ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPU GNED ORDER DATED 04.11.2018 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), GHAZIABAD ON T HE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THERE WAS NO VALID ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S. 147/148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND CONSEQUENTL Y THE REASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE AO IS ALSO BAD IN LA W. 2. THAT THERE WAS NO REASON TO BELIEVE AS CONTEMPLATED U/S. 147/148 OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION AS MADE BY AO IS BAD IN LAW AND THE REASSESSMENT SO FRAMED IN FURTHERANCE OF SUCH INVAL ID ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION IS ALSO INVALID. 3. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUNDS NO. 1 AND 2 ABOVE , THE ADDITION OF RS. 40 LACS, BEING THE GIFT RECEIVED FR OM VARIOUS RELATIVES, AS MADE BY THE AO, IS ARBITRARY, UNJUST AND AT ANY RATE VERY EXCESSIVE. 4. THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 10 LACS, RECEIVED FROM MOT HER SMT. SUSHMA DEVI MADE FROM KNOWN SOURCES, IS BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES NOT ADMISSIBLE IN LAW. 2 5. THAT THE ASSESSEE DENIED HIS LIABILITY TO PAY INTER EST U/S. 234B/234C OF THE ACT. 6. THAT THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE INDEPENDENT AN D WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR WITHDRAW ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME O F HEARING. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE STATED THAT THE LEGAL ISSUES IN DISPUTE ON IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED AND DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ANOTHER ASSESSEE BY THE VARIOUS HONBLE HIGH COURTS AND THE ITAT, BENCHES. THEREF ORE, HE REQUESTED TO FOLLOW THE SAID DECISIONS AND REASSESSMENT MAY BE QUASHED BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENT ION, HE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- - HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F VIPAN KHANNA VS. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 0220 - ITAT, DELHI BENCH A DECISION DATED 20.01.2015 P ASSED IN THE CASE OF BIR BAHADUR SINGH SIJWALI VS. ITO, W ARD- 1, HALDWANI (2015) 53 TAXMANN.COM 366 (DELHI-TRIB). - HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DECISION DATED 14.2.201 5 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. MANIBEN VALJI SHAH (2006) 204 CTR (BOM) 249. - ITAT, DELHI SMC BENCH DECISION DATED 27.5.2016 I N THE CASE OF GURPAL SINGH VS. ITO (2016) 71 TAXMANN.COM 108 (AMRITSAR-TRIB.) - HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT DECISION DATED 06.12.2 017 IN THE CASE OF VIJAY HARICHANDRA PATEL VS. ITO (2018) 400 ITR 167 (GUJ). - HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT DECISION DATED 07.07.201 7 IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS. RMG POLYVINYL (I) LTD. (201 7) 396 ITR 5 (DELHI). 3 2.1 BESIDES ABOVE CASE LAWS, HE HEAVILY RELIED UPON THE ORDER DATED 07.05.2018 PASSED BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MANZIL DINESHKUMAR SHAH REPORTED (2018) 406 ITR 326 (GUJ.) AND STATED THAT THE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN HAND AND THE FACTS OF THE AFORESAID CASE ARE EXAC TLY SIMILAR AND IDENTICAL, HENCE, THE LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APP EAL ARE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE AFORESAID CASE LAW AND REQUESTED TO FOLLOW THE SAME AND QUASH THE REASSESSMENT BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE . 3. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND TO SUPPORT THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, H E HAS FILED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN WHICH HE HAS REFERRED VARIOUS DEC ISIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, HONBLE HIGH COURTS AND THE ITAT BENCHES AND REQUESTED THAT THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE CONSIDERED WI TH REGARD TO REOPENING OF CASES U/S. 147 OF THE I.T. ACT. 1. RAYMOND WOOLLEN MILLS LTD. V. ITO AND OTHERS [2 36 ITR 341 (COPY ENCLOSED) WHERE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HEL D THAT IN DETERMINING WHETHER COMMENCEMENT OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS VALID IT HAS ONLY TO B E SEEN WHETHER THERE WAS PRIMA FACIE SOME MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE DEPARTMENT COULD REOPEN THE CASE. THE SUFFICIENCY OR CORRECTNESS OF THE MATERIA L IS NOT A THING TO BE CONSIDERED AT THIS STAGE. 2. YUVRAJ V. UNION OF INDIA BOMBAY HIGH COURT [200 91 315 ITR 84 (BOMBAY)/[2009] 225 CTR 283 (BOMBAY) POINTS NOT DECIDED WHILE PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) NOT A CASE OF CHANGE OF OPINIO N. ASSESSMENT REOPENED VALIDLY. 3. DEVI ELECTRONICS PVT LTD VS ITO BOMBAY HIGH COU RT 2017-TIQL-92-HC-MUM- IT THE LIKELIHOOD OF A DIFFERENT VIEW WHEN MATERIALS E XIST OF FORMING A REASONABLE BELIEF OF ESCAPED INCOME, WILL NOT DEBAR THE AO FROM EXERCISING HIS JURISDICTION TO AS SESS THE ASSESSEE ON REOPENING NOTICE.. 4. ACORUS UNITECH WIRELESS (P.) LTD. VS ACIT DELHI HIGH COURT T20141 43 TAXMANN.COM 62 (DELHI)/[2014] 223 TAXMAN 181 (DELHI)(MAG)/[2014] 362 ITR 417 (DELHI) IN TERMS OF SECTION 148, LAW ONLY REQUIRES THAT INFORMATION OR MATERIAL ON WHICH ASSESSING OFFICER 4 RECORDS HIS OR HER SATISFACTION HAS TO BE COMMUNICATED TO ASSESSEE, WITHOUT MANDATING DISCLOSURE OF ANY SPECIFIC DOCUMENT. 5. PCIT, VS PARAMOUNT COMMUNICATION (P.) LTD. D ELHI HIGH COURT [2017] 79 TAXMANN.COM 409 (DELHI)/[2017] 392 ITR 444 (DELHI) INFORMATION REGARDING BOGUS PURCHASE BY ASSESSEE RECEIVED BY DRI FROM CCE WHICH WAS PASSED ON TO REVENUE AUTHORITIES WAS 'TANGIBLE MATERIAL OUTSIDE RECORD TO INITIATE VALID REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 6. PARAMOUNT COMMUNICATION (P.) LTD. VS PCIT SUPR EME COURT 2017-TIQL-253- SC-IT SLP OF ASSESSEE DISMISSED. INFORMATION REGARDING BO GUS PURCHASE BY ASSESSEE RECEIVED BY DRI FROM CCE WHICH WAS PASSED ON TO REVENUE AUTHORITIES WAS TANGIBLE MATERIAL OUTSIDE RECORD TO INITIATE VALID REASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS. 7. AMIT POLYPRINTS (P.) LTD. VS PCIT GUJARAT HIGH COURT [2018] 94 TAXMANN.COM 393 (GUJARAT) WHERE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED ON BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATION WING THAT ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED CERTAIN AMOUNT FROM SHEL L COMPANIES WORKING AS AN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY PROVIDER, REASSESSMENT COULD NOT BE HELD UNJUSTIFIE D. 8. AASPAS MULTIMEDIA LTD. VS PCIT GUJARAT HIGH CO URT [2017] 83 TAXMANN.COM 82 (GUJARAT) WHERE REASSESSMENT WAS MADE ON BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM PRINCIPAL DIT (INVESTIGAT ION) THAT ASSESSEE WAS BENEFICIARY OF ACCOMMODATION ENTR IES BY WAY OF SHARE APPLICATION PROVIDED BY A THIRD PAR TY, SAME WAS JUSTIFIED. 9. MURLIBHAI FATANDAS SAWLANI VS ITO GUJARAT HIG H COURT 2016-TIQL-370-HC- AHM-IT IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO OBJECT TO THE REOPENING BY ASKING THE AO TO PRODUCE THE SOURCE FR OM WHERE THE AO HAS GATHERED THE INFORMATION FOR FORMI NG A BELIEF THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. 10. ANKIT AQROCHEM (P.) LTD. VS JCIT RAJASTHAN HIG H COURT [2018] 89 TAXMANN.COM 45 (RAJASTHAN) 5 WHERE DIT INFORMED THAT ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAD RECEIVED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM SEVERAL ENTIT IES WHICH WERE ONLY ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF PROVIDING BO GUS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO BENEFICIARY CONCERNS, REASSESSMENT ON BASIS OF SAID INFORMATION WAS JUSTI FIED. 11. RAKESH GUPTA VS CIT P&H HIGH COURT F20181 93 TAXMANN.COM 271 (PUNJAB & HARYANA) WHERE ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM PRINCIPLE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) TH AT ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED BOGUS LOSS FROM HIS BROKER BY CLIENT CODE MODIFICATION, REASSESSMENT ON BASIS OF SAID INFORMATION WAS JUSTIFIED. 12. HOME FINDERS HOUSING LTD. VS. ITO (2018) 94 TAXMANN.COM 84 (SC). SLP DISMISSED AGAINST HIGH COURTS ORDER THAT NON-COMPLIANCE OF DIRECTION OF SUPREME COURT IN GKN DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. VS. ITO (2002) 125 TAXMAN 963 THAT ON RECEIPT OF OBJECTION GIVEN BY ASSESSEE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148, ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOUND TO DISPOSE OBJECTIONS BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER, WOULD NOT MAKE REASSESSMENT ORDER VOID AB INITIO. 13. BALDEVBAHI BHIKHABHAI PATEL VS. DCIT (GUJARAT HIGH COURT) (2018) 94 TAXMANN.CO, 428(GUJARAT) WHERE REVENUE PRODUCED BUNCH OF DOCUMENTS TO SUGGEST THAT ENTIRE PROPOSAL OF REOPENING OF ASSESS MENT ALONGWITH REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR SAME WERE PLACED BEFORE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER WHO , UPON PERUSAL OF SAME, RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION THA T IT WAS A FIT CASE FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE FOR REOPENING ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT NOTICE ISSUED AGAINST ASSESSEE WAS JUSTIFIED. 4. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS, THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS WELL AS THE CASE LAWS RELIED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO WHILE ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT . AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SAME, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT NO DOUBT TH AT ASSESSEE HAS FILED VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS, BUT T HE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT REPORTED IN (2018) 406 ITR 326 ( GUJ.) IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MANZIL DI NESHKUMAR SHAH IS DIRECTLY 6 APPLICABLE IN THE CASE IN HAND BY WHICH THE LEGAL I SSUES INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL ARE SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IS REPRO DUCED AS UNDER:- 4. THE TRIBUNAL BY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT HELD THAT THE NOTICE WAS INVALID, AGAINST WHICH VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL. 5. MRS.BHATT FOR THE DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY CONTENDE D THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SUFFICIENT MATERIAL TO E NABLE HIM TO FORM A BELIEF THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. AFTER VERIFYING THE INFORMATION EMERGING FROM THE RECORD HE WAS PRIMAFACIE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN PURCHASES FROM HAWALA DEALERS. IN OTHER WORDS, THE PURCHASES WERE BOGUS. ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT' FOR S HORT). THE TRIBUNAL COMMITTED AN ERROR IN INVALIDATING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 6. BY NOW IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT EVEN IN CASE WHER E THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT IS MADE WITHOUT SCRUTINY, THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FORMING THE BE LIEF THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMEN T, WOULD APPLY. REFERENCE IN THIS RESPECT CAN BE MADE OF THE JUDGMENT IN CASE OF INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) P. LTD . V. M. GOPALAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX REPORTED IN [2013] 356 ITR 481 (GUJ). 7. IT IS EQUALLY WELL SETTLED THAT THE NOTICE OF RE OPENING CAN BE SUPPORTED ON THE BASIS OF REASONS RECORDED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE CANNOT SUPPLEMENT SUCH REASONS. THE THIRD PRINCIPLE OF LAW WHICH IS EQUALL Y WELL SETTLED AND WHICH WOULD APPLY IN THE PRESENT CASE I S THAT REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WOULD NOT BE 7 PERMITTED FOR A FISHING OR A ROVING INQUIRY. THIS C AN AS WELL BE SEEN AS PART OF THE FIRST REQUIREMENT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVI NG REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN OTHER WORDS, NOTICE OF REOPENING WHICH IS ISSUED BARELY FOR MAKING FISHING INQUIRY, WOULD NOT SATISFY THIS REQUIREMENT. 8. WITH THIS BACKGROUND, WE MAY REVERT TO THE REASO NS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. INFORMATION FROM THE VALUE ADDED TAX DEPARTMENT OF MUMBAI WAS PLACED FOR HIS CONSIDERATION. THIS INFORMATION CONTAINED LIST OF ALLEGEDLY BOGUS PURCHASES MADE BY VARIOUS BENEFICIA RIES FROM HAWALA DEALERS. ASSESSEE WAS ONE OF THEM. AS P ER THIS INFORMATION, HE HAD MADE PURCHASES WORTH RS.3. 21 CRORES (ROUNDED OFF) FROM SUCH HAWALA DEALERS DURIN G THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, THIS INFORMATION 'NEEDED DEEP VERIFICATION '. 9. IF ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION MADE AVAILABLE TO HIM AND UPON APPLYING HIS MIND TO SUCH INFORMATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FORMED A BELIEF THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, THE COURT WOULD HAVE READILY ALLOW HIM TO REASSESS THE INCOME . IN THE PRESENT CASE HOWEVER, HE RECORDED THAT THE INFORMATION REQUIRED DEEP VERIFICATION. IN PLAIN TE RMS THEREFORE, THE NOTICE WAS BEING ISSUED FOR SUCH VERIFICATION. HIS LATER RECITATION OF THE MANDATORY WORDS THAT HE BELIEVED THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, WOULD NOT CURE THIS FUNDAMENTAL DEFECT. 10. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE HOWEVER URGED U S TO READ THE REASONS AS A WHOLE AND COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD INDEPENDE NTLY 8 FORMED A BELIEF ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION AVAILAB LE ON RECORD THAT INCOME IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ESCA PED ASSESSMENT. ACCEPTING SUCH A REQUEST WOULD IN PLAIN TERMS REQUIRE US TO IGNORE AN IMPORTANT SENTENCE FR OM THE REASONS RECORDED VIZ. 'IT NEEDS DEEP VERIFICATI ON'. 11. BEFORE CLOSING, WE CAN ONLY LAMENT AT THE POSSI BLE REVENUE LOSS. THE LAW AND THE PRINCIPLES NOTED ABOV E ARE FAR TOO WELL SETTLED TO HAVE ESCAPED THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DESPITE WHICH IF THE REASONS RECO RDED FAIL THE TEST OF VALIDITY ON ACCOUNT OF A SENTENCE CONTAINED, IT WOULD BE FOR THE REVENUE TO EXAMINE REASONS BEHIND IT. 12. BOTH THESE TAX APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. 4.1 I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT ALONGWITH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVEN UE AUTHORITIES AND THE OTHER JUDGMENTS CITED BY BOTH THE PARTIES AS WELL A S REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO WHILE ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LEGAL ISSUES IN DISPUTE ARE SQUARELY COVERED B Y THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT REPORTED IN (2018) 406 ITR 326 ( GUJ.) IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MANZIL DI NESHKUMAR SHAH, WHEREIN THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT REOPE NING OF THE ASSESSMENT WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED FOR A FISHING OR A ROVING I NQUIRY, BECAUSE IN THE ASSESSMENT THE AO HAS GONE THROUGH ALL THE FACTS A ND TAKEN ONE DECISION. THE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THE INCOME OF RS. 35 LACS WHICH ACCORDING TO THE REOPENING SUBJECT HAS ALREA DY BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME AND HAS ALSO BEEN ENQUIRED AND TAKEN ONE DECISION. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, NOTICE OF REOPENING U/S. 148 OF THE ACT ON THIS ISSUE WAS MERELY FOR MAKING FISHING OR R OVING INQUIRIES WHICH WOULD NOT PERMIT THE REQUIREMENT OF REOPENING. THEREFORE , RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT REPORTE D IN (2018) 406 ITR 326 (GUJ.) IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX VS. MANZIL DINESHKUMAR SHAH (SUPRA), THE REASSESSMENT IN DISPU TE IS HEREBY QUASHED BY 9 ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE JUDIC IAL DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. SR. DR HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED. IN MY CONSID ERED VIEW, I DO NOT FIND ANY PARITY IN THE FACTS OF THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON WI TH THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASE IN HAND. SINCE THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS ON THIS LEGAL GROUNDS CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ADDITION ON MERIT IS NOT BEING ADJUDICATED BEING ACADEMIC IN NATURE. THE APPEAL F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 25/11/2019. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 25/11/2019 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES